ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th April 2019, 11:48 AM   #1
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Nuclear power plants

Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I stopped watching after the first ten minutes because it was so cringe inducing so I didn't see that portion but I'm assuming he said he is against Nuclear energy?

If so I understand why Nuclear energy still made sense 10 years ago but from what I understand solar has made massive advances in the last decade and will continue to do so as more and more money gets poured into it. Nuclear plants take 5+ years for permitting, clearing a site, construction, and testing before it's operational. It's also more expensive than utility scale solar.

What is the reason to continue supporting Nuclear?
1. Yes, the permitting process takes too long. And that is a problem with the licensing process, not nuclear power. And this is a fraction of the hurdles a coal fired plant is required to clear.

2. Solar power is intermittent and must be supplemented with a reliable 24x7 power supply. That means gas or coal fired or if you're lucky hydroelectric and you really can't build more dams. Or nuclear.

3. Nuclear power can be a lot cheaper than it has been. 4th generation reactors can be built in factories gaining the economies of scale. Pretty much everyone in the industry is excited about the opportunities that modular and molten salt reactors present.

Do some research on molten salt reactors, SMRs and hopefully, someday Thorium breeder reactors. I recommend watching some videos on YouTube to start.

But Bernie is in favor of shutting down existing plants. This would be moronic. Our 60 existing nuclear power plants provide 50 times the power of all the utility solar power.

And Berine was wrong and in denial about how much more CO2 has been dumped into the atmosphere as the result of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant being shut down.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...otherwise/amp/
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:02 PM   #2
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Tesla, you don't need to convince me. But most people hear "nuclear" and they lose their ****. You're not going to convince them no matter how many facts you throw their way because their opinion is not fact-based. Trust me, I've tried.
I've convinced every single person I've talked to on the subject. The problem is that not enough people know the facts. They think they know what's going on. I get why it frightens people. It use to frighten me.

But the more I've studied, the more I realize we've been ******* up. We've been absurdly irrational on this issue. The great thing about this is we can blame the left and the right for being stupid and wrong on this.

Global warming is a problem and we're not going to solve it with solar. We're just not. But we might be able to solve it with nuclear and solar.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:03 PM   #3
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,747
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I've convinced every single person I've talked to on the subject. The problem is that not enough people know the facts. They think they know what's going on. I get why it frightens people. It use to frighten me.

But the more I've studied, the more I realize we've been ******* up. We've been absurdly irrational on this issue. The great thing about this is we can blame the left and the right for being stupid and wrong on this.

Global warming is a problem and we're not going to solve it with solar. We're just not. But we might be able to solve it with nuclear and solar.
Isn't solar actually just nuclear at a distance?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:05 PM   #4
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Isn't solar actually just nuclear at a distance?
Yes, although that is mostly fusion, not fission.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:10 PM   #5
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,076
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yes, although that is mostly fusion, not fission.
Fusion will be coming to earth and providing practical power in the next 10 years! Just like it's been going to for about 40 years now.

I think new nuclear in the USA is a lost cause. Closing down existing would indeed be stupid.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:10 PM   #6
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,554
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I've convinced every single person I've talked to on the subject.
Well you either are very good at convincing people, compared to me, or you deal with far less pig-headed folk.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Isn't solar actually just nuclear at a distance?
It's indirect nuclear.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:13 PM   #7
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,747
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yes, although that is mostly fusion, not fission.
I don't see where fish come into it. Maybe sunfish? But those are quite stupid looking, I can quite understand why nuclear power is unpopular if that's the best mascot. I suggest a rebranding, perhaps get an adorable red panda nibbling on an atom. That would look good on shirts, mugs, tote bags, etc. Yes, perhaps this crazy nuclear stuff could work after all.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:33 PM   #8
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well you either are very good at convincing people, compared to me, or you deal with far less pig-headed folk.
I think I'm pretty good. 30 years in sales. But I think this is more the result of timing than anything. People are waking up to the threat that Global warming presents. Also, I use to be an anti-nuclear protester. I think knowing that I've done a 180 helps.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th April 2019 at 12:35 PM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:44 PM   #9
portlandatheist
Illuminator
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,039
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I've convinced every single person I've talked to on the subject. The problem is that not enough people know the facts. They think they know what's going on. I get why it frightens people. It use to frighten me.

But the more I've studied, the more I realize we've been ******* up. We've been absurdly irrational on this issue. The great thing about this is we can blame the left and the right for being stupid and wrong on this.

Global warming is a problem and we're not going to solve it with solar. We're just not. But we might be able to solve it with nuclear and solar.
If you haven't seen this already. Why renewables won't save the planet by Michael Shellenberger
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:53 PM   #10
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,793
Tesla rotates in his grave.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 12:58 PM   #11
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Tesla rotates in his grave.
What? Is his coffin uncomfortable?
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 01:23 PM   #12
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,792
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What? Is his coffin uncomfortable?

Someone tossed in some pearls as a prank.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 01:29 PM   #13
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Someone tossed in some pearls as a prank.
I love this inside joke.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 01:45 PM   #14
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I love this inside joke.

While Tesla still rotates in his grave.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 01:55 PM   #15
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,487
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What? Is his coffin uncomfortable?
I assume this refers to the belief, common among conspiracy theorists, that Tesla invented a free energy device.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 02:07 PM   #16
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I assume this refers to the belief, common among conspiracy theorists, that Tesla invented a free energy device.
No. Her Empress is taking a shot at me. Armitage's post about pearls is is referring to that Tesla had a kind of thing about them. He wouldn't be in the presence of a woman wearing pearls. They freaked him out.

As for those that believe that Tesla invented a free energy device, they are wrong.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 16th April 2019 at 02:18 PM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 06:20 PM   #17
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,953
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
On the other hand, supporting nuclear power would be politically toxic. That wasn't even an intentional pun!
The voters would go into meltdown.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 06:24 PM   #18
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,953
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It's not that hard.
Nuclear power doesn't emit CO2.
We knooooooooooooooow! It's the dumb electorate who need to be convinced. You know, the dummies who:

a) voted for Donald Trump as president.
b) people who voted Donald Trump tended to think coal mining should be brought back as a growth industry and who think global warming is a Chinese hoax...
c) and the worst part of (a) is that they are probably less concerned with nuclear power than the ones who didn't vote for Donald Trump.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 06:36 PM   #19
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
We knooooooooooooooow! It's the dumb electorate who need to be convinced. You know, the dummies who:

a) voted for Donald Trump as president.
b) people who voted Donald Trump tended to think coal mining should be brought back as a growth industry and who think global warming is a Chinese hoax...
c) and the worst part of (a) is that they are probably less concerned with nuclear power than the ones who didn't vote for Donald Trump.
Except dumb Republicans aren't the problem. It has been fear mongering by liberal Democrats. Environmentalists (me included) pushed hard against nuclear since the mid 70s. Nixon played a part for shutting down molten salt development so he could funnel money to the State of California. But since the movie The China Syndrome came out, the anti-nuclear movement was successful at over-regulating the licensing that it killed the creation of new power plants.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 07:34 PM   #20
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,031
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
1. Yes, the permitting process takes too long. And that is a problem with the licensing process, not nuclear power. And this is a fraction of the hurdles a coal fired plant is required to clear.

2. Solar power is intermittent and must be supplemented with a reliable 24x7 power supply. That means gas or coal fired or if you're lucky hydroelectric and you really can't build more dams. Or nuclear.

3. Nuclear power can be a lot cheaper than it has been. 4th generation reactors can be built in factories gaining the economies of scale. Pretty much everyone in the industry is excited about the opportunities that modular and molten salt reactors present.

Do some research on molten salt reactors, SMRs and hopefully, someday Thorium breeder reactors. I recommend watching some videos on YouTube to start.

But Bernie is in favor of shutting down existing plants. This would be moronic. Our 60 existing nuclear power plants provide 50 times the power of all the utility solar power.

And Berine was wrong and in denial about how much more CO2 has been dumped into the atmosphere as the result of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant being shut down.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...otherwise/amp/
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
If you haven't seen this already. Why renewables won't save the planet by Michael Shellenberger
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
I watched a few TED talks and other youtube videos, one of them was the video portlandatheist linked. They were very informative and I now have a better understanding of why nuclear should be a much bigger part of our energy supply.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2019, 08:02 PM   #21
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
I watched a few TED talks and other youtube videos, one of them was the video portlandatheist linked. They were very informative and I now have a better understanding of why nuclear should be a much bigger part of our energy supply.
That's great. I'm trying to get everyone to learn about nuclear power. I'm particularly interested in molten salt fueled reactors and thorium.

Pressurized water reactors which all present commercial reactors are have the remote potential for a catastrophic accident.

Moving to low pressure molten salt doesn't eliminate all issues, but it pretty much eliminates the possibility of a catastrophic accident since it's not under pressure and if there is a leak it freezes. Its not going any where. No need for huge concrete domes to contain it.
And finally since molten salt operates at high temperatures the waste heat can be used for desalination.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 12:14 AM   #22
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,953
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Except dumb Republicans aren't the problem. It has been fear mongering by liberal Democrats. Environmentalists (me included) pushed hard against nuclear since the mid 70s. Nixon played a part for shutting down molten salt development so he could funnel money to the State of California. But since the movie The China Syndrome came out, the anti-nuclear movement was successful at over-regulating the licensing that it killed the creation of new power plants.
Re: highlighted, that's exactly who I meant with (c) in the post you are replying to.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 02:52 PM   #23
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,454
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
That's great. I'm trying to get everyone to learn about nuclear power. I'm particularly interested in molten salt fueled reactors and thorium.

Pressurized water reactors which all present commercial reactors are have the remote potential for a catastrophic accident.

Moving to low pressure molten salt doesn't eliminate all issues, but it pretty much eliminates the possibility of a catastrophic accident since it's not under pressure and if there is a leak it freezes. Its not going any where. No need for huge concrete domes to contain it.
And finally since molten salt operates at high temperatures the waste heat can be used for desalination.
I have not heard of any improved disposal methods. It still generates radioactive waste. We can get those elements out of the ground and use them, and somehow we can't get them safely into the ground again. Kind of like our tons of waste plastic per citizen per their lifespan.

Only Finland and Sweden are storing the stuff undeground in copper containers. Well, Finland not till 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo...uel_repository
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 03:39 PM   #24
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
I have not heard of any improved disposal methods. It still generates radioactive waste. We can get those elements out of the ground and use them, and somehow we can't get them safely into the ground again. Kind of like our tons of waste plastic per citizen per their lifespan.

Only Finland and Sweden are storing the stuff undeground in copper containers. Well, Finland not till 2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo...uel_repository
So?

Plastic waste is a problem. So is the waste from electronics. What are you going to do with discarded solar panels in 20 years? They include toxic metals. What about the millions of tons of mercury created by coal mining? There are millions of people that die from mining and burning coal. Nuclear waste amounts to only a tiny fraction of waste compared to every other form of energy generation.

Even how they are stored today, they are safe. And guess what? We can use that waste in molten salt and breeder reactors. In fact, we should be able to burn up in the new breeder reactors more than 80 percent of the waste that has been stored today.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 04:05 PM   #25
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,454
We are bad at disposing most of our materials. When chemical manufacturers generate organic waste (C, H, N), most of it is burned. Off site.
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 04:35 PM   #26
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
We are bad at disposing most of our materials. When chemical manufacturers generate organic waste (C, H, N), most of it is burned. Off site.
Yep. I agree.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 04:52 PM   #27
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 16,793
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Even how they are stored today, they are safe. And guess what? We can use that waste in molten salt and breeder reactors.

Or in bombs you drop on people living under governments you don't like.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 04:56 PM   #28
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Or in bombs you drop on people living under governments you don't like.
You would have a really hard time using Thorium to make a bomb. The US tried to and it didn't work.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 06:22 PM   #29
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Nuclear plants take 5+ years for permitting, clearing a site, construction, and testing before it's operational.
That's right as long as 5+ = 10+ as a more reasonable estimate. And maybe 20+ before enough come on line to make a difference. Yet the Climate Gurus are talking about ~12 years to make the changes that are required. So from my point of view, even if nukes are the answer, that answer is too late.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 06:33 PM   #30
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
That's right as long as 5+ = 10+ as a more reasonable estimate. And maybe 20+ before enough come on line to make a difference. Yet the Climate Gurus are talking about ~12 years to make the changes that are required. So from my point of view, even if nukes are the answer, that answer is too late.
It might be too late. That is why we need to speed up the process. The problem isn't technical, its political.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 06:38 PM   #31
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,487
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It might be too late. That is why we need to speed up the process. The problem isn't technical, its political.
This. The actual construction phase of a nuclear power plant is not terribly long--maybe 2-3 years. It's cutting through all the red tape that the government and enviro-whackos throw up in front of it that takes time.

And may I add that wind and solar farms suffer the same fate. Vermont took 8 years to approve the only wind farm so far in the state. California's largest solar farm took almost 5 years from land acquisition to coming online.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 17th April 2019 at 06:44 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2019, 06:53 PM   #32
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
This. The actual construction phase of a nuclear power plant is not terribly long--maybe 2-3 years. It's cutting through all the red tape that the government and enviro-whackos throw up in front of it that takes time.

And may I add that wind and solar farms suffer the same fate. Vermont took 8 years to approve the only wind farm so far in the state. California's largest solar farm took almost 5 years from land acquisition to coming online.
We don't need to cut safety though. Reactors should be built in factories and shipped to sites. We also HAVE TO MOVE away from solid fuel pressurized water reactors. 95 percent of the safety issues can be addressed by moving away from them. This will enable smaller safer sites that will be cheaper to build and more centrally located.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 06:13 AM   #33
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,635
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
We don't need to cut safety though. Reactors should be built in factories and shipped to sites. We also HAVE TO MOVE away from solid fuel pressurized water reactors. 95 percent of the safety issues can be addressed by moving away from them. This will enable smaller safer sites that will be cheaper to build and more centrally located.
Even though the two nuclear disasters were boiling water and not pressurised water?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 08:10 AM   #34
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Even though the two nuclear disasters were boiling water and not pressurised water?
EVERY COMMERCIAL REACTOR including 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl use pressurized water to cool the reactor and transfer heat to the power the turbines. That is between 100 and 150 atmospheres or from about 1500 to 2250 PSI. This is necessary to keep water in its liquid state at temperatures high enough to turn the turbines. We're talking 300 degrees Celsius and above. Water at a single atmosphere boils at 100C.

As water turns to steam it loses most of its cooling properties.

The nightmare scenario with reactors is a loss of pressure instantaneously flashing water to steam and expanding 1000 times. This is why reactors today are housed in huge buildings called containment buildings usually dome shaped. To hold all that radioactive steam in.

Reactors today are kept in a pool of water which covers fuel rods that when critical generate huge amounts of heat. That radioactive water is pumped to heat exchangers which transfers heat to water that isn't radioactive which drives steam turbines that generate electricity. The radioactive or primary water now cooler goes back to the reactor pool to cool the fuel rods and get more heat.

Every serious nuclear accident. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima as well as in the movie The. China Syndrome revolves around the use of water as a coolant. All involved the water failing to cover the fuel rods or core and the rods or core melting. All three were partial or full core meltdowns. The move didn't end with a meltdown.

Salts don't even begin to melt at a single atmosphere until they reach around 400C Absolutely no reason to pressurize them. No need for a huge concrete containment building. No need for a huge pool of water made of 8 inch thick steel surrounded by 2 feet thick reinforced concrete. Also the salt contains the fuel. It already is melted.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 18th April 2019 at 08:47 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 09:02 AM   #35
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,635
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
EVERY COMMERCIAL REACTOR including 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl use pressurized water to cool the reactor and transfer heat to the power the turbines. That is between 100 and 150 atmospheres or from about 1500 to 2250 PSI. This is necessary to keep water in its liquid state at temperatures high enough to turn the turbines. We're talking 300 degrees Celsius and above. Water at a single atmosphere boils at 100C.

As water turns to steam it loses most of its cooling properties.

The nightmare scenario with reactors is a loss of pressure instantaneously flashing water to steam and expanding 1000 times. This is why reactors today are housed in huge buildings called containment buildings usually dome shaped. To hold all that radioactive steam in.

Reactors today are kept in a pool of water which covers fuel rods that when critical generate huge amounts of heat. That radioactive water is pumped to heat exchangers which transfers heat to water that isn't radioactive which drives steam turbines that generate electricity. The radioactive or primary water now cooler goes back to the reactor pool to cool the fuel rods and get more heat.

Every serious nuclear accident. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima as well as in the movie The. China Syndrome revolves around the use of water as a coolant. All involved the water failing to cover the fuel rods or core and the rods or core melting. All three were partial or full core meltdowns. The move didn't end with a meltdown.

Salts don't even begin to melt at a single atmosphere until they reach around 400C Absolutely no reason to pressurize them. No need for a huge concrete containment building. No need for a huge pool of water made of 8 inch thick steel surrounded by 2 feet thick reinforced concrete. Also the salt contains the fuel. It already is melted.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor

Both Fukushima and Chernobyl actually boiled coolant. They were BWRs. The turbines were actually turned by primary coolant that turned into steam after contacting the cladding.


Quote:
The main difference between a BWR and PWR is that in a BWR, the reactor core heats water, which turns to steam and then drives a steam turbine. In a PWR, the reactor core heats water, which does not boil. This hot water then exchanges heat with a lower pressure water system, which turns to steam and drives the turbine.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 18th April 2019 at 09:03 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 09:47 AM   #36
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor

Both Fukushima and Chernobyl actually boiled coolant. They were BWRs. The turbines were actually turned by primary coolant that turned into steam after contacting the cladding.
Both are still under pressure, just not to the same degree. And the coolant is water. As in Boiling Water Reactor. Remember I said that pressures range between around 100 and 150 atmospheres? A BWR operates at around 100 atmospheres and around 300c. At Fukushima the water boiled off because the pumps didn't have electricity to run them. This exposed the fuel rods which melted the fuel and the Zirconium cladding which created hydrogen which exploded.

Any more questions?
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 18th April 2019 at 09:48 AM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 09:52 AM   #37
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,635
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Both are still under pressure, just not to the same degree. And the coolant is water. As in Boiling Water Reactor. Remember I said that pressures range between around 100 and 150 atmospheres? A BWR operates at around 100 atmospheres and around 300c. At Fukushima the water boiled off because the pumps didn't have electricity to run them. This exposed the fuel rods which melted the fuel and the Zirconium cladding which created hydrogen which exploded.

Any more questions?
You wrote this

Quote:
Reactors today are kept in a pool of water which covers fuel rods that when critical generate huge amounts of heat. That radioactive water is pumped to heat exchangers which transfers heat to water that isn't radioactive which drives steam turbines that generate electricity. The radioactive or primary water now cooler goes back to the reactor pool to cool the fuel rods and get more heat.
That is not how Fukushima or Chernobyl operated.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 10:13 AM   #38
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,328
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You wrote this

That is not how Fukushima or Chernobyl operated.
What part is wrong?

The only significant difference between a PWR and a BWR is the amount of pressure and the temperatures they operate at. Both have a core submerged in PRESSURIZED water. The water acts as both a coolant and a moderator. The moderator slows down the neutrons to increase the chance of a nuclear reaction.
__________________
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 10:37 AM   #39
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,635
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What part is wrong?

The only significant difference between a PWR and a BWR is the amount of pressure and the temperatures they operate at. Both have a core submerged in PRESSURIZED water. The water acts as both a coolant and a moderator. The moderator slows down the neutrons to increase the chance of a nuclear reaction.
The actual coolant boils and turns a turbine.it doesn't transfer heat to the secondary loop to turn a turbine.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2019, 10:45 AM   #40
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,071
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What part is wrong?
In a BWR, the primary coolant (the water in contact with the fuel elements) drives the turbine directly. You described a PWR where the primary coolant loop connects to a secondary coolant system, and the secondary coolant loop (water that never contacts the fuel elements) is what drives the turbines.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.